
x 




v 





<{5 ^ 






/ 


















°?c%V 



A 



<, 






>h\? 



#*+. 

















^0« 















VV 













v v 







.g* V */r.T< 






,G* *o V^T*' 





<*. *o. 







^ ■■■;■.. -.■ ; ■ 



i^.^^J^^.^^^^^i^Sv^V^^vi;,&:v^^;?^:5 






■x.- ; r*?&:-&^^ 



3taw ' 5 :' :: 







KING EDWARD VII. In Hii Robes of St.te. 



5 ! 



T 



TRINITY CHURCH 

Columbus, Ohio 



Whitsunday, May 15th. 1910 
7:30 P. M. 



MEMORIAL SERVICE TO EDWARD VII. 
LATE KING OF ENGLAND 

Born November 9th. 1841, Died May 6th. 1910 



Processional Hymn 394 — "O Paradise, O Paradise," 
Apostles' Creed — Prayers. 
Reading from the Bible. 

Hymn 344 — "Nearer My God to Thee," 

The favorite hymn of King Edward. 

Address by Mr. James Boyle, 

"Edward VII. as a Man and Monarch." 

Anthem — "Sunset and Evening Star," by Alfred Tennyson, 

The favorite poem of Queen Victoria, mother of Edward VII. 
Soloist Alfred R. Barrington 

Concluding Remarks by the Rector of the Parish, 

Rev. Theodore Irving Reese. 

Offertory Anthem — "God Shall Wipe Away all Tears from Their Eyes." 

Hymn 674 — "Peace, Perfect Peace," 

Hymn chosen by Queen Alexandra to be sung at the funeral, May 20. 
Sung last Sunday in Buckingham Palace Chapel. 

"Dead March in Saul" — Congregation Standing, 

This March is always played at the funerals of the Monarchs of England. 




JAMES BOYLE. 
Private Secretary to the late Gov. McKinley, and former Consul for the United States 

at Liverpool, England. 



King Edward VII. 

As a Man and a Monarch 



By JAMES BOYLE 

"The King is dead; long live the King!" Grief for the dead King, ac- 
clamations for the new! These two emotions are now — both at the same 
time — surging in the hearts of the myriads of people belonging to the British 
Empire — that Empire which encircles the globe, upon whose territory the sun 
never sets, and whose meteor flag flies on every sea. The same composite 
Teutonic-Celtic race which built and still controls that Empire is the same 
race from which we sprang; it is the same race which founded this free na- 
tion of the West. It is fit and proper, and perfectly in accord with the loft- 
iest natural sentiments, that we here in this temple of worship— mostly Brit- 
ishers by birth or descent — should extend our hand of sympathy to our kins- 
men over the northern border and across the seas. But the whole world 
mourns; sympathy "makes all flesh kin." 

This solemn occasion recalls to my mind services I attended at Liverpool, 
England, in honor of William McKinley, of blessed memory. Those mani- 
festations of sorrow on the part of the British people were not only a tribute 
of respect to the late President of the United States, as the head of a great 
and friendly nation, and of appreciation of his high character personally, but 
they were also the natural outpourings of a genuine sympathy which happily 
now exists between the greatest Empire and the greatest Republic in all his- 
tory, — the one the offspring of the other. 

There has not always been this mutual sympathy between the two na- 
tions, notwithstanding the close relations which have always existed between 
them, as in trade and commerce; for instance: the British Empire buys more 
of the products of the United States than all the rest of the world combined. 
Liverpool alone imports more from this country than the whole continent of 
Europe does. 

5 



When the 1 American Colonials vindicated the principles of representa- 
tive government which they had brought over from England, as Pilgrims, 
Puritans and Cavaliers, there was engendered an estrangement which con- 
tinued to a certain extent for over a century, as the heritage of a family feud; 
and there have been occasions when this estrangement blazed forth into 
demonstrations of actual hostility. The original quarre] was that of English- 
man against Englishman — of the refusal of the stay-at-home brother to con- 
cede to the brother who had come across the seas to found a new England 
the rights and privileges which were undisputably his in the old Mother Land: 
— that there should be no taxation without representation. It was the proverb- 
ial story of a family quarrel — which is notoriously generally more bitter than 
one between strangers; and for centuries the race had established a reputation 
not only of being splendid fighters, but of being self-opinionated and stiff- 
necked; and once having taken up a quarrel, these British and American kins- 
men — both of the same blood and of the same ideas of liberty — not only 
stubbornly fought it out, but neither side was in a particular hurry to fall over 
the neck of the other and pretend that they were as long-lost brothers. Then, 
each was too busy with his own affairs to bother much about matters of senti- 
ment outside concerns of present moment. The American had a wilderness — 
more than the third of a Continent — to subdue; the Britisher went forth and 
commenced anew to build up his Empire, — and, contrary to prophecies when 
the American colonies established their independence, the British flag now flies 
over a far greater extent of territory than in the fateful year of 1 776. 

But the breach was healed and the great reconciliation was effected in 
the fulness of time. It would have been against the law of nature had not 
this come about finally. First, there is the mysterious, but irresistible affinity 
of consanguinity — "the call of the blood;" "blood is thicker than water!" 
Then there are substantially the same ideals and aspirations, individually and 
collectively, between the two peoples: — the same standards of thought, and 
the same all-controlling element in the enactment and the enforcement of law — 
the popular will; the same spirit of obedience to law; there are practically the 
same principles as to representative government and the dominance of the ma- 
jority opinion, accompanied with due safeguards as to the personal rights of the 
minority; in both nations nobody is held guilty of crime against the State or 
any person, high or low, until he is proved guilty; in both countries every 
man is equal before the law in obedience to the general law, and in responsi- 
bility for infraction thereof; there is the same Common Law; there are the 
same Constitutional guarantees; there is the same language — and that lan- 
guage is destined to dominate the world; the same literature — and especially 

6 



the same Bible; there is the same love of individual, personal liberty, and the 
same opposition to autocratic bureaucracy, — and in this particular America 
and Britain stand peculiarly alone by themselves among the great nations; 
and, furthermore, these two nations are in agreement in opposition to con- 
scription and huge standing armies in times of peace. 

All these things were bound to re-unite — and they have re-united — the 
two peoples; not in formal or even tacit alliance; there is no understanding 
between the United States and Great Britain any more than there is between 
this country and any Continental power; but Britons and Americans have 
been reunited in a straight-forward unwritten compact or reciprocal respect 
and affection. This is true notwithstanding the amalgamation of so many of 
other races and nationalities into the blood and the body-politic of the present 
day composite American people. With all the modifications and divergencies 
arising from the vast Continental immigration and absorption, — particularly of 
that sturdy and splendid race, the Germans — and in spite of the fact that, as 
Maurice Low — an Englishman, by the way — lays down in his psychological 
study of the American people, the latter are a new race; and while, as the 
same writer says, "America is no longer England or even a reflex of Eng- 
land," — difference of environment would of itseelf make that impossible — yet, 
in spite of the fact that Americans are a new race as well as a new nation, 
it remains true that the British origin of both race and nationality has left its 
deep and irradicable birth-marks as a heritage for centuries. And the result 
is, that, after making all allowance for the influence of other races and nation- 
alities, the relationship of the two peoples are: in all distinguishing character- 
istics — personal, temperamental, psychological, social, political, and govern- 
mental — there are no other two modern nations in the world with so many 
similarities and so few dissimilarities as Britain and America. The British 
origin of the American race and nationality is indelibly shown in individual, 
social, and domestic characteristics, and in the political institutions of the two 
countries. 

It is of special interest at this time to note the news which has come 
from Washington within the past week: That at last there is to be a settle- 
ment of pecuniary claims between the United States and Great Britain which 
have been outstanding since 1 776. The terms of the claims will be adjusted 
by two representatives of this country, and two of Great Britain, and they 
shall select an umpire. 

Out of 26 Presidents of the United States, 24 have been of British 
paternal ancestry: — 1 Welsh, 3 Scotch, 5 Scotch-Irish, and 15 English. 
The same race that produced Shakespeare, Milton, Cromwell, Nelson, Ten- 

7 



nyson, Huxley, Darwin, Burke, Scott and Burns, in Britain, has also given to 
America Washington, Lincoln, Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, Lee, Hawthorne, 
Longfellow, Irving, Poe. And these are the names of only a few of the 
Immortals in whose veins flowed the blood of this mighty race. America and 
Britain exchange and reciprocally adopt each other's literary geniuses as do 
no other nations. Charles Dickens has more readers in America than in Eng- 
land; and our recently deceased quaint but kindly humorist, Mark Twain, 
was more honored in England than he was even in his native land. 

To Ohioans — and especially to the citizens of Columbus — it ought to be 
a matter of pride that it was William McKinley who gave the finishing touches 
to the blessed re-union of the North and the South, after a fearful fratricidal 
war. So it was during the administration of the same peace-loving statesman 
that the reconciliation and the re-establishment of complete cordiality between 
the two English-speaking peoples came about. And, strange to say, these 
two happy occurrences were the result of the same event — the war with Spain, 
although possibly this fact has not been generally and adequately recognized. 
To my personal knowledge President McKinley was fully advised of the 
friendliness of the British government and people to the United States in that 
conflict, and I also personally know that he was profoundly and gratefully 
appreciative. 

I could tell you much of the wonderful manifestation of sympathy in 
England and all over the British Isles when the news of the dastardly deed 
at Buffalo flashed under the seas, and of the universal expression of grief when 
the fatal end came. American and British flags were hung at half-mast, and 
many were the portraits of McKinley, bordered in black, displayed in public 
places. Religious services were held in most of the cities. At Liverpool a 
civic service was held on the day of the funeral, and the Lord Mayor, wear- 
ing his emblems of office, accompanied by the Municipal Council, marched 
from the Town Hall to the Church of England Pro-Cathedral, where the 
Bishop of the Diocese officiated at a most impressive service. On the follow- 
ing Sunday memorial services were held in a number of Churches of different 
denominations, and what was true of Liverpool was true generally throughout 
the country. By special request I attended a service, as American Consul, 
in an Anglican Church in the poorest district of the city. It is a large church, 
but it was packed with workingmen and their families. You can appreciate 
my feelings of emotion when I saw the Stars and Stripes, entwined fraternally 
with the Union Jack and draped with black, hung over the front of the pul- 
pit; when I heard the vicar in his sermon eloquently and generously praise this 
country, and tenderly eulogize our martryed President; when the congregation 



fervently sang McKinley's favorite hymn, "Lead, Kindly Light;" and when 
— the great congregation reverently standing with bowed heads — the organ 
pealed forth the sublimely grand and soul-inspiring "Dead March in Saul.'' 
And, now, when the entire British people are bowed down in grief over 
the death of their beloved King, should not Americans send forth the voice of 
sympathy? Only those of British birth and those Americans who have spent 
some time in the British Isles can know and understand the passionate affec- 
tion of the people over there for their dead Monarch. Senator Depew ap- 
propriately says that — in its effect — he would compare the King's death 
with the tragic end of McKinley. That comparison explains how close King 
Edward was to his countrymen of every class. When Victoria "the Good,'' 
died, there was a current feeling throughout Britain that the new Sovereign 
would fail to establish himself in the confidence and love of his people as his 
august mother had done. But the doubters were mistaken. It is too early yet 
to say what will be the final verdict of history on King Edward the Seventh. 
But this much is certain: So wonderfully successful was his reign, so fully did 
he meet the tremendous — though mostly undefined — requirements of his king- 
ship, that men and women of the purest and most exacting standards of con- 
duct have formed their ultimate estimate of him by the many excellencies of 
a personal character he showed, especially while he was King, and by his 
matchless record as a constitutional Monarch, and as a "Father of his Peo- 
ple," in verity and in truth. The British people believe — and the world be- 
lieves with them, and nobody so more heartily than the American people — 
that when Albert Edward, Prince of Wales, became Edward the Seventh, 
King of Great Britain and Ireland and of the Dominions beyond the Seas, 
and Emperor of India, he accepted reverently the moral as well as the of- 
ficial responsibilities of his office, and tried to meet them faithfully and brave- 
ly. When he realized that the hand of death was outstretched toward him, 
and that he must in a few hours cast off his regal honors, and become as 
dust of the earth the same as all other men, he said simply, — and in no vain 
boast — "I have done my best; I have tried to do my duty!'' What can mor- 
tal do more? It is said that despite the protests of his physicians two days 
before his death, he insisted, between paroxysms of coughing, upon attend- 
ing to affairs of State. "No," he said smilingly, "my back is to the wall. I 
shall fight it out!'' And later, just before the final attack of coma set in, his 
physicians implored him to let public affairs alone. "No," said the dying King, 
"I shall not give in. I shall work to the end!" And he did work to the end, 
his heart being artificially stimulated with oxygen. Do you wonder that such 

9 



a King evoked the enthusiastic admiration and whole-souled Ioyality of his 
subjects? 

Premier Asquith, in his eloquent and dignified eulogy of his Sovereign in 
the House of Commons, said: "The chief quality which marked the late 
King was his strong and abiding and dominating sense of public duty." 

It can be fairly claimed by the British race, without vaunting, that de- 
votion to duty and faithfulness to trust, is a national characteristic. The great- 
est of all British popular heroes, Nelson, knew well the stuff his sailors were 
made of and what would best appeal to them before going into battle, when 
he flagged the message to his fleet, "England expects every man to do his 
duty!'' And this devotion to duty as a national characteristic has not only 
been exemplified on the man-of-war, and on the battle-field, where British 
valor has won undying fame, but in the hospital, in the routine of official life, 
and in the drudgery of every-day tasks. Under the British governmental and 
social systems there are many anomalies, judging from the American stand- 
ard; yet, in a real, practical sense there is no nation on earth which enjoys 
so much democratic freedom and equality of justice as do the British people 
with the one exception of the citizens of this happy Republic. This democratic 
freedom and equality do not owe their origin and safe-keeping altogether to the 
mere letter of the law — although it can be truly said that it is to England that 
modern democracy owes its first statutory existence — but to the sense of fair-play 
all around, even among the lowliest and humblest, and to the sentiment of 
noblesse oblige among those who by birth or other circumstances enjoy ad- 
vantages and privileges above their fellows; — and this sentiment has its basis 
in a sense of duty. And it is this same spirit of fair-play and noblesse oblige 
which softens the discriminations and to some extent smooths over the inequali- 
ties of caste, and results in there being less bitterness of feeling on the part of 
the poor toward the rich than in almost any other country. 

As to the Monarchy itself, it is almost impossible for the born American 
who has never been to England to quite understand the peculiar mental atti- 
tude of the British people generally and the working classes especially toward 
that admitted anachronism in these democratic days. This opens up a very 
interesting theme, but I can only glance at it here. The underlying controll- 
ing spirit of British institutions — political, religious, social, and economic — is 
that of compromise and opportunism, so long as equal justice be done to all 
men; the substance of things is sought for — and is generally obtained — rather 
than the letter and the bond. "Let well enough alone," is a motto which 
finds exemplification in affairs social, political, and governmental, although 
recently there has arisen a change of spirit in this regard; but it has not 

10 



touched the Monarchy. Indeed, with all the radical social legislation of re- 
cent times — far more radical than has been enacted in this country — it is a 
most extraordinary fact that the Monarchy actually seems to be stronger now 
than it has been within any other period of English history. But, of course, 
in this connection it must be kept in mind that Victoria and Edward have been 
different types of Monarchs than some of those who have sat on the throne. 
The average British idea is thus well expressed by Pope: 
For forms of government let fools contest; 
What e'er is best administered is best. 

It is this mental attitude of the British people as a whole which explains 
the remarkable fact that the democratic sister-states of the Empire — prac- 
tically independent nations— Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South 
Africa, are attached to the Monarchy, — not, mind you, however, necessarily 
to the principle of Monarchism — and why even British Socialists of the most 
extreme type, while professing Republicanism as a theory of government, con- 
fess that so long as the throne is occupied by such Sovereigns as Victoria and 
Edward, they will not lift a finger to disturb the Monarchy. Americans are 
sometimes amazed to hear British Socialists declare that as between a typical 
American President, possessing the enormous official authority which our 
Presidents have under our Constitution and the law, and a King Edward, 
they would prefer the latter! The truth is, that the Sovereign of the British 
Empire has but little direct governmental or executive power, either as re- 
gards Parliament, the law, or the Constitution. There is an oft-quoted saying: 
"The King reigns but does not govern.'' He has certain supposed Constitu- 
tional powers which are very shadowy, and the power to use them — or the 
permission to use them — would depend very largely upon the individuality of 
the Sovereign and the temper of the people at the time; while there are cer- 
tain well-defined limitations beyond which the British Sovereign dare not 
pass, at the risk of losing his crown. But, at the same time, the influence of 
the Monarchy is very great. Probably King Edward had more personal in- 
dividual influence than any other man of these times, not only in his own 
dominions, but throughout the world; and it is a tremendous thing to say of 
him that this influence, speaking broadly, was profoundly beneficent. 

There are a large number of workingmen in the British Parliament. 
Two score of them belong to an independent party, officially know as the 
Labor Party. All of them are trade-unionists, and some of them are Social- 
ists, — indeed, the Labor Party as an organization holds Socialist views. At 
the memorial proceedings in the House of Commons, one of these Labor 
members, — a working miner — speaking for his party, said that by his noble 

11 



life and heroic service, King Edward had enabled the masses of the working 
classes to realize that those in high places used their enormous powers to make 
this life happier and brighter. Phillip Snowden, one of the most influential 
and talented of the Labor members of Parliament, has said, since the death 
of the King, — and he speaks for two-and-a-half millions of British trade 
unionists — "The Labor Party in England had great hopes in King Edward. 
We are a Democratic party, not Republicans. . . . No mem- 
ber of the Labor Party attacks the Monarchy." 

Without conceding one jot or tittle of the glorious and irrevocable propo- 
sition that in this free and grand Republic of ours there shall never be heredi- 
tary privilege, Americans, in considering the status of the British Monarchy, 
should keep in mind certain national peculiarities of the Old Land. There the 
Monarchy — with but one break, and that only a brief one — has been a con- 
tinuous institution, woven into the fabric of national life, from the earliest 
records of its glorious history. And it must also be remembered that tradition 
has a great hold on the average British mind — Welsh, Scotch, English, and 
also Irish, — indeed, probably on the last-named more than on the other di- 
visions of the British race. The British Monarchy is the most ancient in 
Christendom; and a great authority in such matters declares that the late King 
possessed "the oldest male pedigree of any person belonging to the United 
Kingdom, the finest and the longest of undoubted unbroken lineal male des- 
cent," dating back, it is claimed, to the eighth century. Hence, there is 
considerable sentiment attached to the British monarchy; and one of the 
greatest of mortals, Napoleon, affirms that sentiment rules the world. 

A friend whom I have met in different parts of the world, a mission- 
ary Bishop of the great American Methodist Church, once told me his im- 
pressions of the ceremony of the King's Coronation, which he was privileged 
to witness. The Bishop said: "Edward the Seventh ought to make a good 
King. Never in my life have I witnessed such a scene of a people's devotion 
and expression of religious feeling in behalf of mortal man. The vast multi- 
tude in Westminster Abbey seemed to be saturated with the sentiment of 
loyalty to their Sovereign and of a passionate, imploring, almost insistent 
entreaty to the Most High to bless him and his Queen.'' 

I myself saw the King a number of times while I was in England, and 
on several occasions when his well-known democratic good-nature was mani- 
fested. I did not witness the actual Coronation, but I saw him going to the 
Abbey to be crowned, and I saw the wonderfully splendid procession from the 
Abbey back to Buckingham Palace, after the Coronation. I believe there 
can be no disputing the statement that the Coronation of a British Sovereign 

12 



is the most impressive public ceremony in the whole world. Great stands had 
been erected between the Abbey and the Palace, which is the London resi- 
dence of the King. There were hundreds of thousands of eager, happy 
people, — including thousands of Americans — on the streets, and at other points 
of view; the crowds everywhere were "as wide as eye could reach." It has 
been said that in all probability there was a greater mass of human beings 
gathered together in London that day than at any other time at one place 
within the history of this old world of ours. The people were happy beyond 
expression, and yet there was a noticeable nervousness among them. It will 
be recalled that the Coronation had been originally set for some months 
previously, and, indeed, the postponement was not made until the very day 
fixed for the ceremony. As a matter of fact, as it afterwards developed, the 
King had been ill for some time, and his condition grew worse as the first 
date for the Coronation approached. The court physicians had pleaded with 
the King not to undergo the fatigue and even the danger of a long cere- 
mony. But the King declared that if humanly possible he would not dis- 
appoint his people, not only because of sentimental and patriotic reasons, but 
because of the vast expense the people and the government had been put to, 
in addition to the inconvenience. This self-sacrifice on the part of the King 
was quite in keeping with his character; but he risked his life by refusing 
to abandon the program until the last moment. The brave King kept up 
until human nature could stand it no longer. Suddenly the proclamation was 
made that the indisposition of the King was such that the Coronation would 
have to be postponed. I was in London on that day, expecting to see the pro- 
cession. I shall never forget that day. The people were terror-stricken at the 
news that the King was so ill that a grave operation would have to be per- 
formed. At that time the King was very popular, and the dramatic circum- 
stances of his illness brought out an extraordinary demonstration of affection- 
ate sympathy and pathetic devotion. On that day, and for days afterwards, 
wherever people assembled, the National Anthem was sung; at the hotel where 
my wife and I were stopping the people would sing it before sitting down 
to dinner, and there could be no doubt that this was done as a humble, earnest 
petition to the Almighty. Happily, the King recovered, and for the second 
time the Coronation was arranged for. And this time everything passed off 
successfully. 

With curious interest our party gazed at the royal personages and the 
potentates from far and near, being driven from the Palace to the Abbey; 
but with the exception of King Edward and his gentle and beautiful Queen, 
Alexandra, the only ones who received any particular ovation were two sim- 

13 



pie, modest English girls. They came near the head of the procession, fol- 
lowing the mounted couriers. They were in an open royal carriage, and it 
could be seen at once from their dress — a plain but neat uniform — that they 
were nurses. In a flash, the people understood what their King had done. 
He had issued an order that his faithful nurses, who, under God's providence, 
had done so much to restore him to his people, should have this public ac- 
knowledgement of his gratitude, by being driven down the line, from the 
Palace to the Abbey, there to witness his Coronation. In one way it was 
but a small thing for the King to do, but it was also a kingly thing to do: — 
"Just like our King," the delighted people said to each other; it touched the 
British people and brought their Sovereign near to them in a way but few 
other things could have done. In the Abbey itself there was another instance 
of that exquisite, considerate and knightly courtesy, that instant intuitive habit 
of doing the right thing at the right time in the right way, which seemed as 
natural to King Edward as his very physical attributes. As our present 
Ambassador to London, Mr. Reid, once felicitously expressed it: Edward 
the Seventh was "manly in kingly things, and kingly in manly things." The 
incident referred to was during the actual act of Coronation. The ancient and 
impressive ceremony had come to a climax — the supreme moment when the 
Archbishop of Canterbury was to put the jewelled Crown of Empire on the 
Sovereign's head. There was a hush almost painful in the Abbey, and the 
concourse — probably the most illustrious of the great ones of this earth ever 
assembled — felt a thrill almost of awe, so wrought-up were their feelings, 
when for a moment it looked as if there might be a disturbing incident. The 
aged and feeble prelate showed some bodily difficulty in rising to his feet to 
complete the ceremony of Coronation. Instantly, quietly, and unobtrusively, 
the King-Emperor was at his side and aided him. The act was done so 
swiftly and so naturally, that some of the spectators did not appreciate at first 
what had happened. The ceremony was concluded without untoward inci- 
dent; the deep-toned organ rolled and crashed out its thunder of music, the 
trumpets blared, Westminster's choir — angelic in its sweetness — burst into 
song, and with one heart and voice the enthrilled multitude in the solemn fane, 
— where rests the dust of many of Britain's noblest and most heroic sons — 
with one vast tumultuous rapturous sound, all combined in the supplication, 
"God Save the King!'' 

As before said, I was not in the Abbey, but I had an excellent position 
to see the King and Queen going to the Abbey from their Palace, and the 
grand ceremonial procession from the Abbey back to the Palace after the 
Coronation. Suddenly, we could hear the roar of many guns and the joyous 

14 



pealing of bells. That is what we had been waiting for: we knew that the 
ceremony of Coronation was over. The hundreds of thousands of human be- 
ings on the miles of tiers of stands, at countless windows and on house-tops, 
and from every inch of space where view could be had, — stretching from 
Abbey to Palace — like a flash became settled into a concentrated mass of 
eager, strained expectancy, with every eye and every heart focussed on that 
particular spot where first could be seen the royal procession. A strange hush 
spread itself over the sea and the piled-up mountains of human beings; the 
strained intensity became so great that people did not speak. Then from the 
direction of the Abbey came a mighty sound of thousands of human voices, — 
and there is nothing more uplifting in rapture or more awe-inspiring in majesty 
— than such a sound. Louder grew this sound — like the roar of many waters 
— a perfect torrent and avalanche of sound. From where we were we could 
not see the Abbey, but we knew that the King and Queen had started on the 
return journey to the Palace. Very soon we could distinguish that the noise 
was the singing of the National Anthem. The unnumbered thousands com- 
menced singing as soon as they saw the King and Queen come out of the 
Abbey. Block after block of crowjied human beings took up the words as 
soon as the royal pair came into sight, the sound ever increasing in volume. 
When the King and Queen came opposite to the stand in which I was, the 
very air seemed electrically surcharged with the passionate prayer — for it was 
a prayer — the prayer of a nation for its rulers! You know the music; it is 
familiar to you in our patriotic hymn "America." Sung as I heard it sung 
on that occasion, it was grandly, thrillingly majestic. I saw hundreds around 
me singing this appeal to High Heaven with tears streaming down their faces, 
men as well as women — and a number of women were so overcome that they 
fell down on their seats in a paroxysm of sobs. Usually the British are a 
stolid, phlegmatic, undemonstrative people, but beneath this reserve and ap- 
parent coldness, they have a deep religious and patriotic feeling; this is one 
of the several anomalies of the British character. It is sometimes said that 
the English have no poetic sentiment ; yet, as was proudly and with some show 
of foundation declared at a notable literary function at London recently — 
search the annals of every nation — ancient as well as modern — and no other 
one can be found to have produced so many poets of the first order as has 
that little rock-bound, foggy island. The British do not carry their hearts on 
their sleeve; but when their deepest emotions are aroused, they yield un- 
reservedly and cast away all conventionalities. 

When the King and Queen had passed, cheers took the place of singing 
— and the British know how to cheer: — they fairly thundered out their cheers 

15 



— a pendemonium of peans of triumph. Next to me on the stand was an 
American who had been a distinguished officer in the Confederate Army. He 
was carried away by the occasion, and he confessed to me that not since the 
Civil War had he been so moved. Amid such a scene of splendor and such a 
manifestation of affectionate loyalty did King Edward commence his reign. 

And now the King is dead, and an Empire is in tears. And what an 
Empire! Its population is over four hundred millions — more than one-fifth of 
that of the entire globe. Its area is nearly eleven-and-a-half million square 
miles — more than one-fifth of this planet! It embraces practically every race, 
color, tongue, religion, climate and natural product known to man. And the 
home-country of the race — the composite British race — which owns this im- 
mense share of the world — (and as a matter of history, it must be also re- 
membered in this connection that the same race founded this nation) — I say 
the home-country of this mighty race, is less than 122,000 square miles in 
area, and has only about forty-three millions in population. As our own 
Oliver Wendell Holmes says: — 

This little speck, the British Isles — 
'Tis but a freckle! 

There is gallant little Wales, bonnie Scotland, merrie England, and dear 
old Ireland. The first three are really united, in heart as well as in material 
interest. And what shall we say about poor Ireland? King Edward's reign 
has not brought actual full peace and contentment to what is called in one of 
her most pathetic songs the "distressful country;" — but, — speaking without 
reference to politics — the sun has commenced to shine even in Ireland; — and 
it is altogether probable that much of the credit is due to the King's attitude, 
which, while strictly constitutional and unpolitical, has always been sympa- 
thetic and kindly toward Ireland; and it is an open secret that — while care- 
ful not to suggest any definite policy, — he was always solicitous that Ireland 
should be happy and contented within the Union, as are the other two King- 
doms, England and Scotland, and the Principality of Wales. But while 
King Edward has not lived to see a full settlement on the one side and a com- 
plete reconciliation on the other, — "the wing of oblivion stretched o'er the 
past" — he did see before he died a wonderful change come over Ireland, 
both in material things and in the sentiments and the spirit of the people. As 
John Dillon, one of the most trusted of the Nationalist leaders, says: "Ire- 
land has made more progress in the last ten years than during the previous 
two hundred years. . . . The whole face of the land is changing, and 
the spirit of the people with it.'' In truth, there has been born a new Ireland 
— an Ireland practically unknown to most of our fellow-citizens of Irish birth 

16 



or descent. There has been a tremendous improvement in the material and 
social condition of the people, and the old intensely bitter feeling with regard 
to both politics and religion is happily giving place to a spirit of mutual 
tolerance and respect. Probably King Edward was more popular in Ireland 
than any other Monarch who has ever sat on England's throne. William 
O'Brien, the leader of the Independent Nationalists, declares that for the first 
time in centuries the Irish people can place a tribute of respect and kindly 
regard on the tomb of an English King. 

King Edward possessed to a marked degree the faculty of winning the 
affection as well as the confidence of all men, of all classes, who came within 
the sphere of his influence, direct or indirect. Of Americans, our own Mc- 
Kinley perhaps resembled him the most in this regard. On this occasion, it 
would be inappropriate for me to introduce controversional or political ques- 
tions ; but probably the most of the men present know something of the serious 
Parliamentary and Constitutional crisis which has been agitating the United 
Kingdom for several months. The developments have been such that had 
the King lived the probabilities are that in a short time he would have had 
to decide the most momentous Constitutional question which has ever been pre- 
sented to a British monarch. He thoroughly understood the gravity of the 
situation, and there is no doubt that the worry incidental thereto had much 
to do with the fatal ending of his illness. True is it, as England's Immortal 
Bard declares, that "Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown." Probably 
no living man knew how King Edward would have decided this question, but 
there was a universal conviction that whatever his decision might be, it would 
be dictated by the highest considerations of the permanent good of his peo- 
ple, the welfare of the State, and in accordance with his Constitutional rights 
and limitations, as he understood them; and no responsible man in Britain 
would have challenged the integrity of that decision. 

At his funeral there will be all the pomp and circumstance and trappings 
of woe which are considered appropriate to the putting away of the mortal 
remains of a great Monarch. But no aspect of the death and burial of Ed- 
ward the Seventh will give greater dignity and honor than the deep, genuine 
grief of the poorest and lowliest of his subjects. As he is laid away in his 
sepulchre at Royal Windsor, the beautiful tribute can be paid him that he 
was beloved by the poor and the lowly; and no better benediction can any 
man have. 

He not only possessed infinite tact and ever-present consideration for 
others, in private matters and in the little things of life, — earning him the title 
of "the First Gentleman of Europe" — but in serious matters of State, do- 

17 



mestic and foreign, he was universally acknowledged to be wonderfully well- 
informed and skillful; indeed, in diplomacy he was conceded to be match- 
less. He was, in a special sense, friendly to America and Americans. This 
was known not only to Americans visiting England, but it is well recognized 
in Washington; and therefore it is peculiarly satisfactory to Americans and 
Britishers that our esteemed President has, with excellent judgment, selected 
his predecessor, that magnificent American, Mr. Roosevelt, — our foremost 
citizen — to represent this country at the funeral. While the King was truly 
British, he was also broadly cosmopolitan. He was genially human, fond of 
the lighter things in social amenities; but as a Monarch he was also serious- 
minded. He loved his subjects, and he gave them the best there was in him 
in their service. 

The King took an interest in everything legitimate that interested his sub- 
jects; he was a many-sided man, and he devoted much time — as did the 
Queen — in setting in motion, and in encouraging otherwise, movements with 
benevolent and charitable objects, and for social and industrial reform. Even 
his former critics — for even Kings have critics — now freely and thankfully 
admit that in his attitude toward the public, social, and domestic life of the 
people, he as Sovereign exemplified the maxim that "righteousness exalteth a 
nation." 

In affairs of State he was probably the greatest Constitutional Monarch 
who ever sat upon the British throne. The words from the poem of Tenny- 
son addressed to his mother, describing her throne as being "broad based upon 
her people's will,'' applies in an equal degree to King Edward. Tradition 
speaks of "the divine right" of kings; but without taking heed of the Con- 
stitutional principle involved as to the rights and powers of the British Mon- 
archy, it is certainly true that King Edward ruled — as did his mother — by 
the free and loving consent of his people. 

Yes, when Edward the Seventh died, there died a great king — a noble 
king — "aye, every inch a king!'' There were many things in kingcraft in 
which he was great and noble; but in nothing else was he so great and noble 
as he was as a constant, sincere, and earnest worker in behalf of peace and 
good-will among the nations. His many official titles make a long roll-call. 
But greater than any one of these, greater than all combined, is that honorary 
title which the civilized world has bestowed upon him — "Edward the Peace- 
maker!" "Blessed are the Peace-makers," declare the sacred Beatitudes, 
"for they shall be called the children of God!'' It has been given to but few 
mortals to wear a nobler title than that. 

18 



And in such a reflection and in such an estimate of his character, all the 
peoples and nations are reverently paying tribute to Britain's dead King; and 
they all unite in thanking the Heavenly Father and the Ruler of us all that, 
under His providence, — confessing the imperfections of human nature — King 
Edward tried to do his whole duty, and that especially did he do what in 
him lay to hasten the happy day when liberty, justice, and mercy shall pre- 
vail throughout the earth, and when war shall be no more, and when all 
men shall be brothers indeed, thus helping to establish the reign of the King 
of Kings, the Lord of Lords — the Prince of Peace! 



19 



LINEAGE OF THE BRITISH MONARCHY. 

[Compiled by James Boyle.] 

The English Monarchy dates from A. D. 827, when Egbert, "the Saxon," was 
crowned "First King of all England." The dynasty of the Saxons and Danes lasted un- 
til 1066; then followed the House of Normandy, until 1154; the House of Plantagenet 
until 1399; the House of Lancaster, until 1461; the House of York, until 1485; the 
House of Tudor, until 1603; the House of Stuart, until 1685. [The Commonwealth was 
declared May 19, 1649— Oliver Cromwell, "Lord Protector," 1653-8; Richard Crom- 
well, "Lord Protector," 1658-9.] Then came the Restoration of the House of Stuart, 
which lasted until 1714; the House of Hanover, until 1901, Queen Victoria being the last 
of that dynasty. King Edward VII was the first Sovereign of the House of Saxe-Coburg. 

Scotland had independent sovereigns from Malcolm, A. D. 1057, until James VI, 
1567, and he on March 24, 1603, ascended the English throne as James I. 

Some historians have traced the succession of native Irish Sovereigns to about the 
period of the flood, "before which time there were many Princes!" Heber and Heremon, 
Milesian Princes from Galicia, in Spain, who were the original conquerors of Ireland, are 
said to have reigned from the year 1300 B. C. until 1291 B. C, and to have given to the 
Irish throne a race of 171 Kings. Of the "authentic list" of Irish Sovereigns the first is 
Fearaidhach-Fionfachtna, crowned A. D. 4. The last of the independent Irish Kings was 
Roderic, or Roger, O'Connor, crowned 1168. Henry II of England became "Lord of 
Ireland" in 1172 — and this title was continued until Henry VIII, who was styled "King 
of Ireland;" and on the Union of Ireland with Great Britain, January 1, 1801, the title 
was merged into that pertaining to the United Kingdom as a whole. 

Wales had independent Sovereigns from Roderick the Great, A. D. 840, to Llewellyn 
ap Griffith, 1282. Edward of Carnarvon (King Edward II of England) was created 
Prince of Wales in 1301. King Edward VII was the 17th Prince of Wales since that 
date, and he was succeeded in that title by his son (the new King, George V), when Ed- 
ward became Monarch in 1901, upon the death of his mother, Queen Victoria. 

KING EDWARD VII. 

The full title of Edward VII, as Monarch, was: "His Most Excellent Majesty, 
Edward THE Seventh, by the Grace of God, King of the United Kingdom of Great 
Britain and Ireland, and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Defender of the 
Faith, Emperior of India." 

Edward VII was the eldest son of the late Queen and Empress Victoria, and of the 
late Prince Consort. Edward was born at Buckingham Palace, November 9, 1841; he 
succeeded to the throne January 22, 1901. On March 10, 1863, he was married to Prin- 
cess Alexandra Caroline Marie Charlotte Louise Julia (Queen Alexandra, known since the 
death of her husband as the "Queen Mother"), eldest daughter of the late King Christian 
IX, of Denmark; she was born December 1, 1844. 

The eldest son of Edward VII and Queen Alexandra — who would now be King, had 
he lived — was Albert Victor Christian Edward of Wales, Duke of Clarence and Avon- 
dale and Earl of Athlone, was born January 8, 1864, and died January 14, 1892. 

The new King, George V, is the second son of Edward VII and Queen Alexandra. 
Before he became King, he was George Frederick Ernest Albert, Prince of Wales 

20 



and Earl of Chester, Duke of Cornwall and York, etc., etc. He was born June 3, 1865, 
and on July 6, 1893, he was married to the Princess Victoria Mary ("May") of Teck, 
who was born May 26, 1867. 

King Edward was educated chiefly by private tutors, but he attended lectures at 
Edinburgh, Cambridge and Oxford Universities. He was a great traveler as the Prince 
of Wales. His visit to Canada and the United States in 1860 was the occasion of great 
popular demonstrations; he passed through this city (Columbus, O.), making a short stay. 
In 1875 he visited India, and did much to confirm the loyalty to the British Crown of the 
people and the native Princes. 

Of his six children four are now living: George Frederick, now King George V; 
Princess Louise, born February 20, 1867, married July 27, 1889, to the Duke of Fife; 
Princess Victoria Alexandra, born July 6, 1868, and Princess Maud Charlotte, born No- 
vember 26, 1869, married July 22, 1896, to Prince Karl of Denmark, now King Haakon 
VI of Norway. 

At the death of his mother, Queen Victoria, January 22, 1901, Edward ascended the 
throne, but his Coronation, set for June 26, 1902, had to be postponed at the last moment 
on account of a dangerous attack of perityphlitis; he had to undergo a very severe oper- 
ation. On his recovery the Coronation took place August 9, 1902. 

Of the great events of his reign — to the successful issue of which he largely con- 
tributed — some of the most important are: the establishment of cordial relations with France 
and Russia, the treaty with Japan, the conciliation of the Boers in South Africa and the 
federation of the various South African British Colonies with the recently conquered Dutch 
republics. The growth of Imperial sentiment among the self-governing "sister nations" — the 
"British Dominions beyond the Seas" — has been very marked during the reign of King 
Edward VII. 

King Edward died at Buckingham Palace, London, at 1 1 :45 on the night of May 
6, 1910, in the presence of his wife. Queen Alexandra (now the "Queen Mother"), the 
Prince and Princess of Wales (now the King and the Queen Consort), the Princess Royal, 
the Duchess of Fife, Princess Victoria, and Princess Louise (Duchess of Argyle). The 
King's body was conveyed from Westminster Hall, London, to Windsor, for burial, on 
May 20. The funeral ceremonies were the most elaborate and impressive, the procession 
was the largest and the most magnificent, and the concourse of public mourners was the 
most stupendous ever recorded in history. 



21 



7 



PD -96 




>°-v 








o 












o V- -^ o 



/ % -y< 



v *L7C.'* ^ aO 










C^ 



^ 










,0 







^0^ 








V ^V^'-f ^ a0 t> ,, °* ^> 



» ^ 




++# 










o. ^To' .0"' 
•^ a0 





« C „ <6 ^ „ L , . 



s 



^°< 





^°^ '. 



^ ^. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



019 880 465 4 









[fit? tVoS'flwttJtlt tcsz 



